378 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

What point to a husk being able to do it? We don't even know the conditions need for the sample needed to do synthesis.

Yes we do, we need something with "organic energy" and maybe cybernetic implants to jump into the beam.
Shepherd, TIM, a Husk, or an Indoctrinated Quarian could do it.

No, nothing is ever stated of he requirement. We can't blindling say a husk meets it.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

christrek1982 wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

There's nothing wrong with it but there is something wrong with your inability to comprehend that one isn't going to be provided. There is something wrong with the rustled jimmies from not having one

Conversely, I ask you what's wrong with NOT having a disney ending?

Ask yourself, would the act of saving private ryan have the same 'weight' if none of ryans brothers died and no one in the platoon sent to save him died?

no but if SPR was on the same track as ME3 the private ryan should get shot and killed by an unknown sniper in the last 10 mins of the film and then the director should stand up and shout ART. SPR had some sweet in with the bitter ME3 just has frustrasion and bitter. 

That's not the case at all. Private Ryan was not even the main character. The person the viewer connected to the most was Tom Hnaks character...He was the main character and he died. ME is the same case of that. The goal was achevied but the main character died doing it.

Shepard is the mian chatacter. Tom Hanks character is the main character.

The goal was to save the galexy. The goal was to save private Ryan.
Both goals were met. The main character dies.

The movie viewer has no control over the main character's fate
the game player does.  Until the end at least.

[dreman9999]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I find people who argue against a conventional victory because it would be too much of a "Disney" ending hilarious. It would be much "darker" than either synthesis or control. And, for some, even destroy.

And judging by the people on BSN who loved the endings, they actually got their Disney ending. Control? Their Shepard would make a great dictator. Synthesis? It's for the galaxy's own good. Destroy? The Geth and EDI are just toasters anyway.

I didn't get a disney ending. Just because we picked it does not mean we love the results.
I see the ending More like Ender's game ending.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

What point to a husk being able to do it? We don't even know the conditions need for the sample needed to do synthesis.

Yes we do, we need something with "organic energy" and maybe cybernetic implants to jump into the beam.
Shepherd, TIM, a Husk, or an Indoctrinated Quarian could do it.

No, nothing is ever stated of he requirement. We can't blindling say a husk meets it.

What makes Shepard the only one that's able to do it then ?

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

christrek1982 wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

There's nothing wrong with it but there is something wrong with your inability to comprehend that one isn't going to be provided. There is something wrong with the rustled jimmies from not having one

Conversely, I ask you what's wrong with NOT having a disney ending?

Ask yourself, would the act of saving private ryan have the same 'weight' if none of ryans brothers died and no one in the platoon sent to save him died?

no but if SPR was on the same track as ME3 the private ryan should get shot and killed by an unknown sniper in the last 10 mins of the film and then the director should stand up and shout ART. SPR had some sweet in with the bitter ME3 just has frustrasion and bitter. 

That's not the case at all. Private Ryan was not even the main character. The person the viewer connected to the most was Tom Hnaks character...He was the main character and he died. ME is the same case of that. The goal was achevied but the main character died doing it.

Shepard is the mian chatacter. Tom Hanks character is the main character.

The goal was to save the galexy. The goal was to save private Ryan.
Both goals were met. The main character dies.

The movie viewer has no control over the main character's fate
the game player does.  Until the end at least.

That does not mean the player get to choose if the main character dies. Hech, you do have a choice that let's SHepard lives.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

What point to a husk being able to do it? We don't even know the conditions need for the sample needed to do synthesis.

Yes we do, we need something with "organic energy" and maybe cybernetic implants to jump into the beam.
Shepherd, TIM, a Husk, or an Indoctrinated Quarian could do it.

No, nothing is ever stated of he requirement. We can't blindling say a husk meets it.

What makes Shepard the only one that's able to do it then ?

We he does have free will for one.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

dreman9999 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I find people who argue against a conventional victory because it would be too much of a "Disney" ending hilarious. It would be much "darker" than either synthesis or control. And, for some, even destroy.

And judging by the people on BSN who loved the endings, they actually got their Disney ending. Control? Their Shepard would make a great dictator. Synthesis? It's for the galaxy's own good. Destroy? The Geth and EDI are just toasters anyway.

I didn't get a disney ending. Just because we picked it does not mean we love the results.
I see the ending More like Ender's game ending.

Perhaps you didn't, but I've seen some of the arguments people around here use to justify Control and Synthesis. And believe me, those people got their Disney ending.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean the player get to choose if the main character dies. Hech, you do have a choice that let's SHepard lives.

if thats the case, why don't the fully show it and why did half the devs say Shepard could have died there

[Bill Casey]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

They do have morality. They just don't have moralitys that  coexist with others. This is like saying muslum terrorists have no morality.

I didn't say morality. Everybody has their own morals but those people were not morally conflicted about what they did. 

They not in moral conflict with waht they did because of there morality. Nor everyone morality is the same.
That's like say muslum terrorist should feel bad for 911.

Explain to me Albert Fish's morality...

[KENNY4753]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I find people who argue against a conventional victory because it would be too much of a "Disney" ending hilarious. It would be much "darker" than either synthesis or control. And, for some, even destroy.
 

The thing I think is funny about people against conventional victory is that they act like it will be without loss. We would lose more that way but we would be free of dealing with stupid options like control, synthesis, or destroy.

And why is conventionally victory impossible. We spent 5 years and 100+ hours livingf as Shepard, a man who does the impossible time after time like it's a stroll in the park, but I guess after the alliance grounded him for 6 months he lost his touch.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

What point to a husk being able to do it? We don't even know the conditions need for the sample needed to do synthesis.

Yes we do, we need something with "organic energy" and maybe cybernetic implants to jump into the beam.
Shepherd, TIM, a Husk, or an Indoctrinated Quarian could do it.

No, nothing is ever stated of he requirement. We can't blindling say a husk meets it.

What makes Shepard the only one that's able to do it then ?

We he does have free will for one.

So does anybody else. If TIM wasn't indoctrinated he could have been able to do it, or any Quarian not indoctrinated could do it.

[XqctaX]

i think the argument that there should'nt be a happy ending becouse everyone would want it
must be the most moronic brainless argument ever made.

lets not give what they want to them becouse they want it.

bad ending?
semi bad ending?
good ending?

i cant choose EHHH. lol the GOOD ending ffs.

if people wannat torment themself
go buy some all black clothes. listen to emo music
and buy some razorblades.
take up BDSM or what ever

but for the love of god leave the entertaintment to those that wants to be entertained and feel good about it alone.

Modifié par XqctaX, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:19 .

[Dharvy]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

@Dreman I understand where you're coming from but what they are trying to say is not that your choices don't matter at all, its just that your choices became just some number and are not really relative to their effect. The choices just boils down to collecting war assets for the Crucible not really making choices that have some kind of cause and effect.

But  preping for any war, choice do boil down to stats. Every war is like that. It not bad the ME3  does the same thing. Heck, DA:O came down to stats as well.
Your confusing the fact that morality does not matter with choice not mattering. It choices does matter, you just don't have only one path to do it.

You complint is no that you don't have no choice or choice does not matter. It's that BW did not give you rht e choices you want.

Not really my complaint, just trying to clarify where the others are coming from.

If you're goal is to stop the Reapers and any choice you do just equal some stats to do such then basically what you choose don't matter only that you do choose. So choices don't matter only that you make choices matter.

Edit: Actually your choices do matter to the EC slides so as that is part of the ending, your choices, I guess matter to how the galaxy may or may not be in the EC slides.

Modifié par Dharvy, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:25 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Of course it's based on cynicism.  We were told that our chocies would matter.  That these were "our Shepards" And yet we get herded into pretty much inescapable death.  No choice.  it's like Ghostbusters "Choose the form of the Destructor!"

Except that Shep's alive in the most popular ending, of course. (Or at least, what I'm assuming is the most popular ending, since I don't have the actual tracking data.)

And even if it was inevitable death, that doesn't mean that choices didn't matter. Just that they didn't matter for this one thing.

[TheCrazyHobo]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...


 What makes Shepard the only one that's able to do it then ?

We he does have free will for one

So? All he has do to is jump into a beam and disintergrate.  I dont think the Crucible cares if he did it of his own free will as it only needs his "organic energy."
If a Husk/ TIM/ Indoctrinated Agent has "organic energy" they too can jump into the beam.  Free will does not matter. 

Modifié par TheCrazyHobo, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:20 .

[KENNY4753]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean the player get to choose if the main character dies. Hech, you do have a choice that let's SHepard lives.

if thats the case, why don't the fully show it and why did half the devs say Shepard could have died there

because they want you to be morally conflicted remember

/sarcasm

Modifié par KENNY4753, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:19 .

[dreman9999]

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

They do have morality. They just don't have moralitys that  coexist with others. This is like saying muslum terrorists have no morality.

I didn't say morality. Everybody has their own morals but those people were not morally conflicted about what they did. 

They not in moral conflict with waht they did because of there morality. Nor everyone morality is the same.
That's like say muslum terrorist should feel bad for 911.

Explain to me Albert Fish's morality...

It's his morality. Remember morality is relitive.

[christrek1982]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean the player get to choose if the main character dies. Hech, you do have a choice that let's SHepard lives.

if thats the case, why don't the fully show it and why did half the devs say Shepard could have died there

as far as I know only 1 dev said that but you point is a good one out of all the ending the only shep "Lives"???? ending is the weakest and least satisfying it is also the highest EMS score to get it.

[dreman9999]

Dharvy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

@Dreman I understand where you're coming from but what they are trying to say is not that your choices don't matter at all, its just that your choices became just some number and are not really relative to their effect. The choices just boils down to collecting war assets for the Crucible not really making choices that have some kind of cause and effect.

But  preping for any war, choice do boil down to stats. Every war is like that. It not bad the ME3  does the same thing. Heck, DA:O came down to stats as well.
Your confusing the fact that morality does not matter with choice not mattering. It choices does matter, you just don't have only one path to do it.

You complint is no that you don't have no choice or choice does not matter. It's that BW did not give you rht e choices you want.

Not really my complaint, just trying to clarify where the others are coming from.

If you're goal is to stop the Reapers and any choice you do just equal some stats to do such then basically what you choose don't matter only that you do choose. So choices don't matter only that you make choices matter.

But that still means choices matter.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[GreyReaver]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

I will ask this again: How is Synthesis not a happy/sappy ending? Our dying protagonist gives up his life so that everyone may be Techno-Gods.

1. Shepard Dies HTF is that happy?  Disney epitomizes, "happy, uplifting, feel good endings."
2. Synthesis is forced on all sentient organic and synthetics beings as well as all organic and inorganic material.
3. Afterwards we are one, the same.  Javik, the protheans similarity was their downfall.  The Universe requires diversity for survival.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I find people who argue against a conventional victory because it would be too much of a "Disney" ending hilarious. It would be much "darker" than either synthesis or control. And, for some, even destroy.
 

The thing I think is funny about people against conventional victory is that they act like it will be without loss. We would lose more that way but we would be free of dealing with stupid options like control, synthesis, or destroy.

And why is conventionally victory impossible. We spent 5 years and 100+ hours livingf as Shepard, a man who does the impossible time after time like it's a stroll in the park, but I guess after the alliance grounded him for 6 months he lost his touch.

The entire arguemnt with convetional victory is that the player loses nothing to get it., the galexy does. Added, it lessens the danger of the reapers dramaticly.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:29 .

[TheCrazyHobo]

GreyReaver wrote...

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

I will ask this again: How is Synthesis not a happy/sappy ending? Our dying protagonist gives up his life so that everyone may be Techno-Gods.

1. Shepard Dies HTF is that happy?  Disney epitomizes, "happy, uplifting, feel good endings."
2. Synthesis is forced on all sentient organic and synthetics beings as well as all organic and inorganic material.
3. Afterwards we are one, the same.  Javik, the protheans similarity was their downfall.  The Universe requires diversity for survival.

Okay, have you watched the EC ending for Synthesis?

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I find people who argue against a conventional victory because it would be too much of a "Disney" ending hilarious. It would be much "darker" than either synthesis or control. And, for some, even destroy.
 

The thing I think is funny about people against conventional victory is that they act like it will be without loss. We would lose more that way but we would be free of dealing with stupid options like control, synthesis, or destroy.

And why is conventionally victory impossible. We spent 5 years and 100+ hours livingf as Shepard, a man who does the impossible time after time like it's a stroll in the park, but I guess after the alliance grounded him for 6 months he lost his touch.

The entire arguemnt with convetional vitory is that the player loses nothing to get it., the galexy does. Added, it lessens the danger of the reapers dramaticly.

The player loses a lot as well as the galaxy. You would lose a lot of friends and see a lot of people you know getting killed to help stop the reapers. I'm not saying that everybody will survive.

and I don't take the Reapers seriously knowing that they are just doing what they are told by an AI but it wouldn't lessen the dangers of them. You had to unite a whole f***ing galaxy to fight them. Obviously they are dangerous. I am not saying that you will pull an ME2 suicide mission and take out all the Reapers with a team of 12 squadmates and only the Normandy.

[ShepnTali]

So no, there's nothing wrong with a golden ending based on how you work it.


Just like you can have a golden ending in ME2. Suicide, suicide, suicide, one way trip yada yada.

Modifié par ShepnTali, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:34 .

[AlanC9]

Dharvy wrote...
Not really my complaint, just trying to clarify where the others are coming from. 

If you're goal is to stop the Reapers and any choice you do just equal some stats to do such then basically what you choose don't matter only that you do choose. So choices don't matter only that you make choices matter.

Sure. There is a real problem with ME3's design here. Or rather, Bio didn't get away with something in ME3 that they did get away with in DA:O

Most choices you make in ME3 get you EMS points that aren't extremely different no matter which way you go.. Hanar Diplomat gets you either a 40 point Spectre Unit or a 58 point Hanar and Drell Forces, for instance. The two forces at Rannoch are pretty closely matched depending on Legion's LM. Of course, sometimes you can get both, but being able to do that isn't dependent on what you do in ME3. EMS checks completeness, not your success at the individual decisions.

DA:O was fundamentally no different -- however you resolve the plotlines, it helps you defeat the darkspawn. In fact, DA:O has less variety in this aspect than ME3 (making up for it with the DR choice, of course). The big difference is that in DA:O the different forces you recruit fight alongside you. They're about equal in combat power, so it doesn't really change what happens in the endgame battles. But they look and feel different.